New York Times Editorial

Yep, that title says it all. I read a New York Times Editorial.

"John Kerry, who came in first last night, and John Edwards, who scored a surprising second, appeared to be the men voters thought looked most electable. That throws cold water, at least temporarily, on the long-held theory that primary voters favor candidates who are too far to the left or right to win in the fall. In this era of attack-dog politics, it's nice to have a moment of pragmatism."

The problem with laying it at the doorstep of pragmatism, however, automatically discounts any policies that Kerry and Edwards might have. It discounts the possibility that Iowan voters might have looked at the platforms of Kerry and Edwards (and Dean and Gephardt) and voted for the one who more closely matches what they actually believe. Instead the assumption is that if the voters voted for who they actually thought was the best man, that man would be Dean or Gephardt (or Kucinich, the most liberal candidate). I'm not sure that's a fair assumption.